This was supposed to be Bertolucci's big film. His epic. The one that cleaned up at the Oscars. Well, it wasn't. It didn't win any major awards. Yet I felt after watching it for the fourth of fifth time that Brando should have won for best lead and Bertolucci should have won for best director. The film is very avant garde. Totally new in film. After the fall of the studio system, film was free to meander into different forms and one form it took was this film. It is, perhaps, a precursor to films of the era. Taxi Driver couldn't have been made without this film coming first. The Graduate came before, but never had sex and sexuality been taken so seriously before Last Tango in Paris.
I watched this film in High School and I didn't get it. I watched it again when I was teaching English in Shanghai and I got more of it. But it wasn't until I was a graduate student in Screenwriting that the whole thing came to me. It is such a depressing film. There is no up ending, there is nothing up about this film. It is truly a Paris "bleu" film. Brando's wife committed suicide. And the reason why is never revealed. Why would she kill herself? It torments Brando until the end of the film. Until he follows his mystery lover into her apartment and is fatally shot.
I've had moments of melancholy. I take an anti-depressant. In research it is said France is the largest consumer of anti-depressants. The US is second. And this film is no counter argument to that research. It is thoroughly a trip down the scale. To oblivion. Or at least the consideration of oblivion. To take one's life is the ultimate depression. I recently had a conversation with a friend and I commented how Hemingway said he writes drunk and edits sober. Well, he shot himself so take from that advice what you will. And Tango is like that saying. Live but beware. There are plenty of obstacles to being content. Is that what these characters were seeking? To be content? To live in peace?
The film is great. I noticed this time around that Bertolucci takes a pot shot at Francios Truffaut. The filmmaker that Jean Pierre Leaud plays seems devilishly like Truffaut. Yet it also reflects on memory and it's construction. How do we know our past? Is constantly reflecting on it a prison? If so how do we break free? Suicide? I guess that's what Brando's character thought. There is no exit, to steal from Sartre. We must live until our time comes. We must face banality. Trapped mediocrity.
If that's the case, Tango is anything but mediocre. It is a film that is great and will be in film history for decades to come.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
reminiscing about Goodfellas
Goodfellas was the first movie that I saw as a teenager. I had seen other films like Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris, but I didn't understand it then. Now, years later after reading the script and watching it twice, I understood the basic plot of the film. Goodfellas hit me like a rock. I had just gotten into high school. It was sophomore year. The high school I went to had two feeder middle schools from different parts of the small city I lived in. One part of the feed came from the West side and the Southwest side. The other came from the East side and Southeast side. This stayed divided in High school. The East Side stayed with the East side and the West side stayed with the West side. Over the years I've thought about both sides of town. How they are different, how they don't get along, and how they come together. Anyway, I fell in with a crowd that was East Side and Southeast side. My friend, who was also the pitcher on our City Championship winning Greenman league baseball team had a VHS copy of Goodfellas. He also had a copy of the Rolling Stones Exile on Main St. My friend never did good in school, but he had pretty good taste in film and music. We watched Goodfellas I don't know how many times. 5, 6, 7, and plenty of scene studies. I just wanted to watch one part, just one scene. I was particularly taken by the scene with DeNiro smoking a cigarette thinking about how he was going to kill Morry. He smoked, and thought, the Cream song In the Sunshine of Your Love played over his murderous intent.
I thought the film was great. Now watching it again years later it still has the same effect. Only I recognize things. I watched some clips of the film on youtube, Just one scene. Like where he is driving and almost crashes. Just great. When Henry gets busted for dealing coke, just great. So much visual and aural poetry. The music, the visual scenes, and of course the story make it truly Scorsese's underappreciated masterpiece. I know it has a cult following but it was not lauded with awards. Scorsese didn't win the Oscar for best director. Something that alluded him until the Departed. It's too bad. What were the other films that year? 1989? I don't know. Surely he got a nom. Didn't he?
There were other things that I noticed when watching the film after so many years. That most of the first hour is told in flashback. That fateful day when Joe Pesci murders a made man proves the crew's undoing. Years ago I never realized that it was in flashback. until 1980 when the film plays in real time. I also assumed that Paulie was the Godfather. When I watched it again I realized that he wasn't the Godfather. He was a boss, but not the chief. It occurred to me when he was pressing Henry about the whereabouts of Billy Batts.
Like most mafia films Goodfellas ends badly. Everyone gets whacked or sent to prison. I remember when Henry Hill died. Some years ago it was a newsclip on msn.com or something. It was before facebook and all that. I wonder whatever happened to Jimmy Conway? Did he ever get out of prison?
Goodfellas is a great film. Especially with it's changing of perspective. Often films only have one perspecitve that of the main character. Goodfellas has many narrative voices, not just Henry's but his wife, too. The changing in perspective is another thing I noticed about the film this time around. Again a great film.
Martine Scorsese's influence on film can't be underestimated. He's made many films. And his voice resonates in my mind about film history from his documentaries and scenes from his narrative films inform my education about film. It's too bad I didn't go to NYU Film school. Then, perhaps, I could have studied under him and been a Scorsese disciple. I've seen his films many times and look forward to watching more films with Scorsese as director. Can't wait for the next one!
I thought the film was great. Now watching it again years later it still has the same effect. Only I recognize things. I watched some clips of the film on youtube, Just one scene. Like where he is driving and almost crashes. Just great. When Henry gets busted for dealing coke, just great. So much visual and aural poetry. The music, the visual scenes, and of course the story make it truly Scorsese's underappreciated masterpiece. I know it has a cult following but it was not lauded with awards. Scorsese didn't win the Oscar for best director. Something that alluded him until the Departed. It's too bad. What were the other films that year? 1989? I don't know. Surely he got a nom. Didn't he?
There were other things that I noticed when watching the film after so many years. That most of the first hour is told in flashback. That fateful day when Joe Pesci murders a made man proves the crew's undoing. Years ago I never realized that it was in flashback. until 1980 when the film plays in real time. I also assumed that Paulie was the Godfather. When I watched it again I realized that he wasn't the Godfather. He was a boss, but not the chief. It occurred to me when he was pressing Henry about the whereabouts of Billy Batts.
Like most mafia films Goodfellas ends badly. Everyone gets whacked or sent to prison. I remember when Henry Hill died. Some years ago it was a newsclip on msn.com or something. It was before facebook and all that. I wonder whatever happened to Jimmy Conway? Did he ever get out of prison?
Goodfellas is a great film. Especially with it's changing of perspective. Often films only have one perspecitve that of the main character. Goodfellas has many narrative voices, not just Henry's but his wife, too. The changing in perspective is another thing I noticed about the film this time around. Again a great film.
Martine Scorsese's influence on film can't be underestimated. He's made many films. And his voice resonates in my mind about film history from his documentaries and scenes from his narrative films inform my education about film. It's too bad I didn't go to NYU Film school. Then, perhaps, I could have studied under him and been a Scorsese disciple. I've seen his films many times and look forward to watching more films with Scorsese as director. Can't wait for the next one!
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
thoughts on The Danish Girl
This was an interesting movie. Even thought I felt like ti went on too long. And when I researched about the main character Lily I found several errors in the film. Lily underwent four operations, not two. And Lily's former wife married an Italian diplomat and died penniless after he went through most of their savings. In the film it shows her by his side with an Art dealer as he dies. It is a very emotional scene. But it isn't true. The real Gerda found out about Lily's death while she was in Morocco with her new husband. Like the story of Lily, the film seems to play into the sensationalism of the story.
The film reaches it's most intense periods when Lily goes to a ball dressed as a woman. After the ball she wants to become a woman. After years of living secretly as Lily she finally gets in touch with a doctor who is performing surgeries to make men into women. I believe Lily was the first to get such a surgery. Tragically Lily died about thirty days after her last surgery.
The film is very tender and heart rendering. I didn't know much about the transgender movement in this country or Europe or anywhere else. After the film I could really emphasize with Lily and people like her.
I was taken in with the story, but I thought it could have been better. And more factually accurate.
The film reaches it's most intense periods when Lily goes to a ball dressed as a woman. After the ball she wants to become a woman. After years of living secretly as Lily she finally gets in touch with a doctor who is performing surgeries to make men into women. I believe Lily was the first to get such a surgery. Tragically Lily died about thirty days after her last surgery.
The film is very tender and heart rendering. I didn't know much about the transgender movement in this country or Europe or anywhere else. After the film I could really emphasize with Lily and people like her.
I was taken in with the story, but I thought it could have been better. And more factually accurate.
thoughts on Carol
This was a really good film. It builds dramatic tension incredibly well. The whole film I was waiting for when the two women would finally satisfy there longing for each other. It started out so simple. She was a shop girl into photography. She was in the middle of a divorce just discovering here feelings for other women. And from there the action slowly builds. Until, finally in a hotel room on New Year's Eve, they hook up. The scenes of their love making were almost like soft-core. Yet they had a tenderness that isn't found in soft-core. Afterword it is discovered that there was a Private dick spying on them for the older woman's husband. He intended to use it against her in the custody battle over their daughter.
Unlike most LGBT films this one ends up on an up ending. The divorce goes through and Blanchett's character loses her daughter, but the two women lovers end up together without much opposition from the husband or any of Mara's character's male suitors. The last scene leaves the viewer with the assumption that they will live together and happily ever after.
There is no violent scene like in Brokeback Mountain which end with the brutal beating of one of the gay cowboys. Nor is there an assassination like in Milk. From this I think it is true to say that Lesbians have it easier than gay men. Lesbianism has long been more easily accepted as a lifestyle than being a gay man. There is opposition. They have to distance themselves from the men in their lives, but they do it without much reprisal.
The films strength comes from the two characters involved in the relationship. Blanchett seems like a upper class woman who's sexuality was hidden for years by a loveless marriage. On the other hand is Rooney Mara's character which seems to have liked women from the start. So the major conflict with the story is between these two women who are in love with each other and the male patriarchy which doesn't want to allow them to be in love with each other. This conflict is resolved when they do consumate their love.
I remember my Mother referring to these arrangements between two women who lived together but weren't married. She called them "Boston Marriages." I don't know if they all involved lesbians, but I would imagine that it was a front for women who were in love with each other but couldn't get married.
The film was very enjoyable. All of the settings were very evocative of the times of the 50s in America and New York. All the Fedora hats and long skirts with cigarettes and dry martinis. The setting was staged down to the last detail.
Very good film.
Unlike most LGBT films this one ends up on an up ending. The divorce goes through and Blanchett's character loses her daughter, but the two women lovers end up together without much opposition from the husband or any of Mara's character's male suitors. The last scene leaves the viewer with the assumption that they will live together and happily ever after.
There is no violent scene like in Brokeback Mountain which end with the brutal beating of one of the gay cowboys. Nor is there an assassination like in Milk. From this I think it is true to say that Lesbians have it easier than gay men. Lesbianism has long been more easily accepted as a lifestyle than being a gay man. There is opposition. They have to distance themselves from the men in their lives, but they do it without much reprisal.
The films strength comes from the two characters involved in the relationship. Blanchett seems like a upper class woman who's sexuality was hidden for years by a loveless marriage. On the other hand is Rooney Mara's character which seems to have liked women from the start. So the major conflict with the story is between these two women who are in love with each other and the male patriarchy which doesn't want to allow them to be in love with each other. This conflict is resolved when they do consumate their love.
I remember my Mother referring to these arrangements between two women who lived together but weren't married. She called them "Boston Marriages." I don't know if they all involved lesbians, but I would imagine that it was a front for women who were in love with each other but couldn't get married.
The film was very enjoyable. All of the settings were very evocative of the times of the 50s in America and New York. All the Fedora hats and long skirts with cigarettes and dry martinis. The setting was staged down to the last detail.
Very good film.
thoughts on Macbeth
I thought this film was great. A tour de force. The cinematography and editing were top notch. I couldn't have asked for more from a film than what was given in this latest rendition of the Shakespeare classic. Being that I'm a great fan of Shakespeare; I've seen most of the adaptations of his works into film and of course I've seen Shakespeare in Love which I adore. I also go to a Shakespeare festival in the Summer not far from where I live.
The one draw back was the dialogue. I got most of it. There were parts that I didn't get because they were spoken at a low tone and in Elizabethan language which is difficult to grasp even at a normal volume. But I still got most of the dialogue and what I heard was pure poetry. I was in awe of the use of language and metaphor. Just great..
The battle scenes rivaled the best adaptations of battle scenes in a Shakespeare play or in any other battle scenes like Braveheart. The use of slow motion was enough to take my breathe away. And when it sped up I was thoroughly entertained. I was glued to the screen I didn't want to look away.
Fassbender was great. I've seen him in several films the last of which was 12 Years a Slave and he really brings the drama. His portrayal of the deeply psychotic Macbeth was worthy of awards. So was Marion Cotillard. She was brilliant as Lady Macbeth.
It was definitely an update and improvement on Roman Polanski's film from the 70s. There is also Kurosawa's Japanese adaptation of Macbeth for comparison. All three films are great. Yet it is Kurzel's latest rendering that raises the standard for filmmakers who dare to take on Shakespeare.
The one draw back was the dialogue. I got most of it. There were parts that I didn't get because they were spoken at a low tone and in Elizabethan language which is difficult to grasp even at a normal volume. But I still got most of the dialogue and what I heard was pure poetry. I was in awe of the use of language and metaphor. Just great..
The battle scenes rivaled the best adaptations of battle scenes in a Shakespeare play or in any other battle scenes like Braveheart. The use of slow motion was enough to take my breathe away. And when it sped up I was thoroughly entertained. I was glued to the screen I didn't want to look away.
Fassbender was great. I've seen him in several films the last of which was 12 Years a Slave and he really brings the drama. His portrayal of the deeply psychotic Macbeth was worthy of awards. So was Marion Cotillard. She was brilliant as Lady Macbeth.
It was definitely an update and improvement on Roman Polanski's film from the 70s. There is also Kurosawa's Japanese adaptation of Macbeth for comparison. All three films are great. Yet it is Kurzel's latest rendering that raises the standard for filmmakers who dare to take on Shakespeare.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Another look at Hiroshima, Mon Amour
I watched Hiroshima, Mon Amour years ago. I remember parts of it, but it wasn't particularly clear to me. Recently I finished a book about The French New Wave which included a section about the Left Bank filmmakers which includes the director of Hiroshima, Alain Resnais. In the discussion about Hiroshima, the author filled me in on a lot of details I missed the first time I watched the film. The first time I saw the film I was unaware that Riva, the main character had had an affair with a German soldier near where she grew up. After the liberation of her town, the soldier was killed and she was humiliated. The townspeople shaved her head and her parents through her in the cellar when she started to breakdown from the humiliation and screaming fits she suffered from. The book also discussed how memory played a big role in the film. It is her memory of Niver that informs most of the film's narrative. After the initial thirty minutes or so, the film starts to flashback to Niver from Japan. The book I was reading says the Japanese man inserts himself into the French woman's past. Yet she doesn't allow him total access. It is her memory and she stays true to her recollection of humiliation and suffering.
I must admit that this film is one of the more difficult films to make sense of. It's structure is very disjointed. It goes from present to flashback, dialogue to voice over, Japan to France quickly. Yet I couldn't ignore Riva's suffering or the suffering of Hiroshima's residents from the nuclear bomb. This film wasn't initially released in the US because of the sympathy it arouses for Hiroshima and Riva's character. And it only played out of competition at the Cannes film festival in 1959. Yet it is sympathy which is engendered from this film. Sympathy for Hiroshima; was it really necessary to drop the bomb? The film includes some Cinema Verite-like shots of victims of the bombing. They are graphic and caused me to be taken aback at the burns suffered from the a-bomb.
Then the film shows the anguish that Riva's character goes through in deciding to leave Hiroshima. Should she stay with her Japanese lover? Or return to France and her husband? She is torn apart by the decision. And the ending is ambiguous as to whether she returns or not.
I thought Hiroshima is a great film about memory and how it affects someone in the present. Riva's character seems to be bounding from place to place, searching for something, that she doesn't find. Peace? Of mind? Emotional stability? She cracks up twice during the film and anyone with that type past has to bear a burden that no one should have to bear. I guess it is like that when memories come flooding back to you years after you have lived through hard times. And how we deal with it in the past. We rationalize it and just something of the time. It's a passing of youth into adulthood. Yet we can't escape our past. Eventually it catches up to us. Or we keep searching for something to relieve the burden of the past.
I must admit that this film is one of the more difficult films to make sense of. It's structure is very disjointed. It goes from present to flashback, dialogue to voice over, Japan to France quickly. Yet I couldn't ignore Riva's suffering or the suffering of Hiroshima's residents from the nuclear bomb. This film wasn't initially released in the US because of the sympathy it arouses for Hiroshima and Riva's character. And it only played out of competition at the Cannes film festival in 1959. Yet it is sympathy which is engendered from this film. Sympathy for Hiroshima; was it really necessary to drop the bomb? The film includes some Cinema Verite-like shots of victims of the bombing. They are graphic and caused me to be taken aback at the burns suffered from the a-bomb.
Then the film shows the anguish that Riva's character goes through in deciding to leave Hiroshima. Should she stay with her Japanese lover? Or return to France and her husband? She is torn apart by the decision. And the ending is ambiguous as to whether she returns or not.
I thought Hiroshima is a great film about memory and how it affects someone in the present. Riva's character seems to be bounding from place to place, searching for something, that she doesn't find. Peace? Of mind? Emotional stability? She cracks up twice during the film and anyone with that type past has to bear a burden that no one should have to bear. I guess it is like that when memories come flooding back to you years after you have lived through hard times. And how we deal with it in the past. We rationalize it and just something of the time. It's a passing of youth into adulthood. Yet we can't escape our past. Eventually it catches up to us. Or we keep searching for something to relieve the burden of the past.
Watching Nixon. Again?
Oliver Stone's Nixon is a great film. I'm surprised that it didn't get a best picture nod from the Academy. Too bad. I think it really deserved one. The film does suffer from a very opinionated authorial voice. If Nixon was really that bad, then how did he get elected twice? Or is there something wrong with the American electorate? Perhaps that's one of the questions the film seeks to answer. The film is set during a very tumultuous time in American history. The Vietnam War was raging. The Kennedy brothers were assassinated. MLK was gunned down. Race riots were tearing cities apart. Did Nixon really bring the country back together? Or was he just a beneficiary of death as the film presents as one of it's thematic questions? Did the death of his brothers and the death of Jack and Bobby Kennedy cause him to become a Law student and then, President of the United States? It's an interesting question. I wonder if the real Nixon thought about it.
Anthony Hopkins portrayal is very dark and melancholic. I enjoyed it immensely. His dark scowl is memorable. His mannerisms, his way of talking, all got Nixon down pat. I've scene several other films about Nixon and they all portray him similarly. The flashback scenes to his childhood are don in black and white and the language they use is from Elizabethan times. I'm not sure why Stone chose to do it that way, but it makes it more classical, like Shakespeare. We see the character of Nixon develop from a scared little boy into a deeply insecure man. In frequently flashing back Stone links the politician Nixon closely to his childhood. With a focus on his relationship with his mother standing out most of all. By showing his character in flashback Stone creates an epic legend about Nixon. A legend that plays to Republican audiences very well. Like the Soviet premier Brezhnev says in the film; "he had the World in his hand."
The editing in the film really impressed me. The overlays with voice over are excellent. I especially liked Nixon's speech at the Republican National Convention of 1968. His speech borders on demogaguery. And with all the images cut into the speech with voice over it is powerful cinema. And editing the past with the Constitutional Crisis that would engulf Nixon's presidency I didn't look away from the screen for long. It's use of audio and visual imagery brings the viewer deep into the psychology of the Republican party of the 70's and America during a time it was deeply divided.
I kept thinking how popular this film would be for Republicans. I don't like Dick Nixon. Yet, when I looked on Amazon.com for a book about Nixon there were three or four recently published volumes about Nixon. Even after all these years have past and America has changed, Nixon is still a popular topic to write about. I suppose it's like this film. Even after Nixon has died and time has past this film stands out as an excellent film about Nixon and America during the Nixon years.
Anthony Hopkins portrayal is very dark and melancholic. I enjoyed it immensely. His dark scowl is memorable. His mannerisms, his way of talking, all got Nixon down pat. I've scene several other films about Nixon and they all portray him similarly. The flashback scenes to his childhood are don in black and white and the language they use is from Elizabethan times. I'm not sure why Stone chose to do it that way, but it makes it more classical, like Shakespeare. We see the character of Nixon develop from a scared little boy into a deeply insecure man. In frequently flashing back Stone links the politician Nixon closely to his childhood. With a focus on his relationship with his mother standing out most of all. By showing his character in flashback Stone creates an epic legend about Nixon. A legend that plays to Republican audiences very well. Like the Soviet premier Brezhnev says in the film; "he had the World in his hand."
The editing in the film really impressed me. The overlays with voice over are excellent. I especially liked Nixon's speech at the Republican National Convention of 1968. His speech borders on demogaguery. And with all the images cut into the speech with voice over it is powerful cinema. And editing the past with the Constitutional Crisis that would engulf Nixon's presidency I didn't look away from the screen for long. It's use of audio and visual imagery brings the viewer deep into the psychology of the Republican party of the 70's and America during a time it was deeply divided.
I kept thinking how popular this film would be for Republicans. I don't like Dick Nixon. Yet, when I looked on Amazon.com for a book about Nixon there were three or four recently published volumes about Nixon. Even after all these years have past and America has changed, Nixon is still a popular topic to write about. I suppose it's like this film. Even after Nixon has died and time has past this film stands out as an excellent film about Nixon and America during the Nixon years.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Reflections on a my Film blog
When I was looking at how many blog posts I've made this year it is at about 100. By the end of the year I should have about 100 blog posts about films. That means I will have watched at least 100 films this year. Last year was similar with a total of around 85 blog posts. I've watched a lot of films. I wonder if this is a lot compared to other screenwriting students? I don't know. It's been fun. I've enjoyed most of the films. Some I could care less to have seen. Others I can't wait to see again.
I've started to watch films on my TV again. For a while I was only watching them on my computer. My computer is good enough, but I like watching them from a comfortable chair rather than the stiff chair that is around my computer. My TV is also much bigger than my computer so it doesn't create as much tension on my eyes or head. I get awfully stiff in my neck and the tension goes to my head and eye, so I'm looking for ways to lessen the stress on my neck and so far it has been working.
I should probably exercise or eat better. I'm sure that would help too.
I've started to watch films on my TV again. For a while I was only watching them on my computer. My computer is good enough, but I like watching them from a comfortable chair rather than the stiff chair that is around my computer. My TV is also much bigger than my computer so it doesn't create as much tension on my eyes or head. I get awfully stiff in my neck and the tension goes to my head and eye, so I'm looking for ways to lessen the stress on my neck and so far it has been working.
I should probably exercise or eat better. I'm sure that would help too.
Watching Juo Dou and Raise the Red Lantern on a cold, Winter night
I decided to watch more films by Zhang Yimou. I saw coming home and I wanted to watch more of his films. I have seen Raise the Red Lantern five times. Tonight I watched Juo Dou for the first time and it did not disappoint. Li Gong is fantastic as the abused young wife of an old man who finds love with a younger man. There were several translations in the subtitles, so I was unsure of the exact relationship between Gong Li and her character's lover. Was he the old man's son? Nephew? I wasn't sure. Whatever he was it was scandalous. Zhang Yimou is a cinematographer by training. He had done several films as a cinematographer before he became a director. I really wanted to see his first directorial effort which was Red Sorghum, but I can't find a copy that is playable on a standard US DVD player. I'm going to order it anyway and see if it plays on my laptop.
Anyway in a book of interviews I'm reading about Zhang he says that he uses colors to portray his films. In Juo Dou the color red is very much on display. In the book, Yimou says in China the color red means passion. Before it became used by the Communists, red was a very popular color in China. In the film it is used at the same time as the first sexual encounter between Gong Li and her lover. Several sheets of cloth fall into a pool of water. The cloth is dyed red, the water is reflecting red, and the characters have a red reflection. It shows the enormous passion that the two lovers have for each other.
The passion plays out in their illicit affair time and again throughout the film. I was kept on edge to see what would happen when the two lovers went away from their baby boy for a tryst. The boy wonders back to the cheated on and bitter father who tries to drown the boy. He doesn't succeed and later on in the film he is even killed by the young boy who turns into a sociopath and kills his own father. It is a very dramatic scene. Gong Li is on the stairs screaming, her lover is dying, and their boy has a sadistic look on his face. The film ends with Gong Li burning everything to the ground; the fire reaching hire and more intense as she burns with it.
The setup is reached with the two lovers. The dramatic tension builds up to the death of the father. And the resolution happens when the boy finds the two lovers and kills his father.
I really enjoyed this film. Along with Raise the Red Lantern and the Story of Qui Jui it makes a trilogy starrring Gong Li and Zhang Yimou directing. When I was watching the end of Raise the Red Lantern, I thought back to when I was teaching English in Shanghai. I remember looking out of my window so excited with life. It was New Year's Holiday. I had a month off from teaching and plenty of money to go around Shanghai and Beijing. I remember Beijing was covered in snow when I got there. And it snowed again when I was leaving. I took the night train from Shanghai to Beijing. When I was on the train I had the weirdest dream, almost like a horror film. My old political science professor from undergrad decapitated my mother. It was a horrific dream that I'll never forget.
I stayed for four days in Beijing. I went to a hotel that my friend had recommended, but that I found unsuitable. I stayed at a hostel. It was adequate. Clean. Convenient to Beijing.
I remember the first day I was there. I went to the Forbidden City. I must have been so disoriented because I gave all the money in my wallet to a stranger! Luckily I got it back. I went into to the Mausoleum that contained Mao Zedong's body lying in state. It was strange to see him lying there dead. That day I toured the whole Forbidden City. It is an enormous place with several seperate large building and many more smaller ones. It took me the whole day just to get through it.
I guess all this is coming back because I watched the Last Emperor last night. Now I'm watching Zhang Yimou films. I don't know how many times I've seen the Last Emperor. I watched all the extras. One was about how Bertolucci found his way to East Asia and chose the story of Pu Yi to make a film about. The film shows how Bertolucci was looking for something outside of West Europe or North America. What he found was China. And the film is excellent no matter how many times I've seen it.
Ah China! When will I encounter you again. I see you on film and in books but it is no substitute for the real thing. Perhaps another walk around Chinatown? It's not the same. I hope to get back there someday.
Anyway in a book of interviews I'm reading about Zhang he says that he uses colors to portray his films. In Juo Dou the color red is very much on display. In the book, Yimou says in China the color red means passion. Before it became used by the Communists, red was a very popular color in China. In the film it is used at the same time as the first sexual encounter between Gong Li and her lover. Several sheets of cloth fall into a pool of water. The cloth is dyed red, the water is reflecting red, and the characters have a red reflection. It shows the enormous passion that the two lovers have for each other.
The passion plays out in their illicit affair time and again throughout the film. I was kept on edge to see what would happen when the two lovers went away from their baby boy for a tryst. The boy wonders back to the cheated on and bitter father who tries to drown the boy. He doesn't succeed and later on in the film he is even killed by the young boy who turns into a sociopath and kills his own father. It is a very dramatic scene. Gong Li is on the stairs screaming, her lover is dying, and their boy has a sadistic look on his face. The film ends with Gong Li burning everything to the ground; the fire reaching hire and more intense as she burns with it.
The setup is reached with the two lovers. The dramatic tension builds up to the death of the father. And the resolution happens when the boy finds the two lovers and kills his father.
I really enjoyed this film. Along with Raise the Red Lantern and the Story of Qui Jui it makes a trilogy starrring Gong Li and Zhang Yimou directing. When I was watching the end of Raise the Red Lantern, I thought back to when I was teaching English in Shanghai. I remember looking out of my window so excited with life. It was New Year's Holiday. I had a month off from teaching and plenty of money to go around Shanghai and Beijing. I remember Beijing was covered in snow when I got there. And it snowed again when I was leaving. I took the night train from Shanghai to Beijing. When I was on the train I had the weirdest dream, almost like a horror film. My old political science professor from undergrad decapitated my mother. It was a horrific dream that I'll never forget.
I stayed for four days in Beijing. I went to a hotel that my friend had recommended, but that I found unsuitable. I stayed at a hostel. It was adequate. Clean. Convenient to Beijing.
I remember the first day I was there. I went to the Forbidden City. I must have been so disoriented because I gave all the money in my wallet to a stranger! Luckily I got it back. I went into to the Mausoleum that contained Mao Zedong's body lying in state. It was strange to see him lying there dead. That day I toured the whole Forbidden City. It is an enormous place with several seperate large building and many more smaller ones. It took me the whole day just to get through it.
I guess all this is coming back because I watched the Last Emperor last night. Now I'm watching Zhang Yimou films. I don't know how many times I've seen the Last Emperor. I watched all the extras. One was about how Bertolucci found his way to East Asia and chose the story of Pu Yi to make a film about. The film shows how Bertolucci was looking for something outside of West Europe or North America. What he found was China. And the film is excellent no matter how many times I've seen it.
Ah China! When will I encounter you again. I see you on film and in books but it is no substitute for the real thing. Perhaps another walk around Chinatown? It's not the same. I hope to get back there someday.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Thoughts about The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
I've seen this film three times. I saw it once when I borrowed it from the library. Now I watched it twice more when I rented it off of Amazon.com. It is a very good film. It won the Oscar for best Foreign Language the year it was released. The film is hard to classify in terms of a genre, but it ranges from comedy to drama, politics to romance.
The film settles on the characters trying to have dinner or lunch which they are always prevented from doing. The scene in the Café shows the running gag in the film. First the ladies ask for Coffee, then Tea, and finally water, which doesn't come in time. While they are trying to get something to drink an army officer come over and tells them about his life. It is an interesting, surreal sequence that Bunuel is so good at. And it makes the film excellent. It blends dream and reality, so much that by the end you don't know whether what's going on is a dream or reality. A very surrealist film. Very entertaining. It is probably Bunuel's best film. And of course the women are all very pretty. I especially like Stephane Audran's cheekbones. I couldn't stop looking at her. She was so mesmerizing.
The film ends ambiguously with the group walking down a country road to where? I guess it is left up to the viewer to speculate where they are going. Perhaps they are lost? Or is it Bunuel torturing his characters. They must walk to an undetermined destination constantly searching for a place to eat. I could hardly say a bad thing about this film. It was well shot. The acting was good. The writing was creative and not too predictable. And of course Bunuel was a master at direction. Great film!
The film settles on the characters trying to have dinner or lunch which they are always prevented from doing. The scene in the Café shows the running gag in the film. First the ladies ask for Coffee, then Tea, and finally water, which doesn't come in time. While they are trying to get something to drink an army officer come over and tells them about his life. It is an interesting, surreal sequence that Bunuel is so good at. And it makes the film excellent. It blends dream and reality, so much that by the end you don't know whether what's going on is a dream or reality. A very surrealist film. Very entertaining. It is probably Bunuel's best film. And of course the women are all very pretty. I especially like Stephane Audran's cheekbones. I couldn't stop looking at her. She was so mesmerizing.
The film ends ambiguously with the group walking down a country road to where? I guess it is left up to the viewer to speculate where they are going. Perhaps they are lost? Or is it Bunuel torturing his characters. They must walk to an undetermined destination constantly searching for a place to eat. I could hardly say a bad thing about this film. It was well shot. The acting was good. The writing was creative and not too predictable. And of course Bunuel was a master at direction. Great film!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)